Charlotte officer did not activate body camera until after Keith Scott had been shot

[wildeyed]

Source: Washington Post

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Crucial evidence in the police shooting death of Keith Scott is not available because one of the officers failed to activate his body camera as soon as he responded to the encounter, in violation of department policy.

The department released two videos late Saturday after four days of sometimes violent protests here over the death of Scott, who police said had a gun. Neither video is conclusive on that question.

snip.....

The department’s body camera policy, effective June 2016, states that officers must fully activate their body cameras “prior to or in anticipation of” interactions with civilians resulting from traffic stops, suspicious vehicle or persons investigations, arrests, use of force incidents and voluntary investigative conduct. In the policy, “voluntary investigative conduct” is defined as “the mere suspicion of some type of criminal activity by a person,” which fits the description of why police say officers confronted Scott.

According to the police narrative of the incident, an officer saw Scott hold up a gun, which prompted the plainclothes officers to leave the area, put on vests marked with police insignia, and then return to detain Scott.

Those officers did not have cameras. Another officer, responding to a call about a man with a gun, soon arrived. According to the department’s policy, this officer should have activated his camera as soon as he left his vehicle. Instead, he waited for at least 45 seconds, and perhaps longer, before activating his camera.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/26/charlotte-officer-did-not-activate-body-camera-until-after-keith-scott-had-been-shot-2/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.3cff67de23ad

---

More incompetence. If the police narrative is true, then proper use of their body cameras would have proven that decisively.

[greyl]

1. Incriminating incompetence. nt

[BootinUp]

2. NOT Incompetence. Intentional flouting of the law. nt

[cstanleytech]

5. You would probably have to establish a pattern of the officer repeatedly doing it to prove that

because otherwise they can simply claim human error.
What I dont understand though is why the cameras arent simply connected up to the dispatch office and set to automatically activate as soon as an officer radios in that they are responding to a specific call and or that they radio in that they just pulled someone over? I mean wouldnt that work better than relying on them to turn it on and off all the time?

[branford]

7. Possibly, but there still must be adequate privacy safeguards

to protect the officers as well as the general public.

I strongly support body cameras as they both provide evidence against bad officers and exonerate those unjustly accused of wrongdoing. However, the cameras are certainly not without practical, technical, political and legal obstacles and concerns that must be properly addressed. As more and more departments adopt body cameras, particularly in large cities, these issues will hopefully slowly be resolved.

[cstanleytech]

11. Yes but the tech these days is advanced enough now that surely they could

setup a secure bluetooth connection from the camera to the computer and or radio inside the patrol car and set it to kick on when responding to the call and then back off when the officer contacts dispatch to inform them that the issue is resolved?

[SoCalMusicLover]

3. Just A Stupid Toy Paid For By Taxpayers

Why bother turning it on? I'm sure they'll get a stern warning.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Who? The cop?

[Iggo]

9. Nah, he's a stupid tool.

[ToxMarz]

6. Is there a way to know that it wasn't turned on as opposed

to that portion being erased.?

[wildeyed]

8. The camera is always recording, but only saves 30 seconds

with no sound once it has been activated. All the videos are silent for the first 30 seconds, so you know when they officer actually activated the device.

In theory, the police could edit a video to make it appear that an officer turned the device on later than they really did. Just delete the part that is uncomfortable for them and then edit the soundtrack for the 30-second interval. Or they could simply delete videos that did not fit their narrative and claim that the officer never activated the device.

Police who do not turn the device on in situations like this should be fired.

[Iggo]

10. "...but only saves 30 seconds with no sound once it has been activated..."

That only makes a certain kind of sense.